The government of this country has long and justly been considered the
best among the nations of Europe; and the English people have ever
evinced a proportionate desire for information in its proceedings. But
in the earlier days of our constitution, we shall find that much
jealousy on the part of our rulers debarred the people from access to
the national deliberations. Queen Elizabeth, with a sagacity that
derived no assurance from the precedents of former times, foresaw the
mighty power of the press, as an engine applied to state purposes, and
accordingly aroused the spirit of her subjects, by causing the first
gazettes to be published in the year of the armada [Footnote: See sir J.
Mackintosh's Defence in the Peltier case.]: and D'Ewes's journals of her
parliaments contain the earliest reports of parliamentary debates.
The first volume of the commons' journals comprises the debates from the
accession of James the first, to the cessation of parliaments under
Charles the first. The publication, in 1766, of a member's notes,
furnished authentic debates of the session in 1621. Rushworth, in his
voluminous collections, presents us with many of the debates during the
civil wars. Gray's more regular debates succeeded. From these, until the
times that followed the glorious revolution in 1688, we have no reports
of parliamentary proceedings, interesting as they must have been, on
which we can place any more reliance, than on those of Dr. Johnson,
which, we shall presently see, cannot pretend to the character of
faithful reports, however deservedly eminent they are as eloquent and
energetic compositions. But the revolution was not immediately followed
by a liberal diffusion of parliamentary intelligence, for the newspapers
of William's reign only give occasionally a detached speech. That
sovereign scarcely allowed liberty of speech to the members of
parliament themselves, and was fully as tyrannical in disposition as his
predecessor on the throne; but, happily for the English nation, he was
tied and bound by the strong fetters of law.
The stormy period that ensued on William's death, is somewhat
illustrated by Boyer's POLITICAL STATE. The HISTORICAL REGISTERS which
appeared on the accession of George the first, may be considered as more
faithful depositories of political information than Boyer's partial
publication. The spirited opposition to sir Robert Walpole excited an
unprecedented anxiety in the nation to learn the internal proceedings of
parliament. This wish on the part of constituents to know and scrutinize
the conduct of their representatives, which to us appears so reasonable
a claim, was regarded in a different light by our ancestors. But the
frown of authority in the reign of George the second began to have less
power to alarm a people whose minds were undergoing progressive
illumination. A general desire was then loudly expressed for
parliamentary information, which Cave sought to gratify by the insertion
of the debates in the GENTLEMAN'S MAGAZINE. The jealousy of the houses,
however, subjected that indefatigable man to the practices of stratagem
for the accomplishment of his design. He held the office of inspector of
franks in the postoffice, which brought him into contact with the
officers of both houses of parliament, and afforded him frequent and
ready access to many of the members. Cave, availing himself of this
advantage, frequented the houses when any debate of public interest was
expected, and, along with a friend, posted himself in the gallery of the
house of commons, and in some retired station in that of the lords,
where, unobserved, they took notes of the several speeches. These notes
were afterwards arranged and expanded by Guthrie, the historian, then in
the employment of Cave, and presented to the public, monthly, in the
Gentleman's Magazine. They first appeared in July, 1736 [Footnote: Gent.
Mag. vol. vi.], and were perused with the greatest eagerness. But it was
soon intimated to Cave, that the speaker was offended with this freedom,
which he regarded in the light of a breach of privilege, and would
subject Cave, unless he desisted, to parliamentary censure, or perhaps
punishment. To escape this, and likewise to avoid an abridgment of his
magazine, Cave had recourse to the following artifice. He opened his
magazine for June, 1738, with an article entitled, "Debates in the
senate of Magna Lilliputia;" in which he artfully deplores the
prohibition that forbids him to present his readers with the
consultations of their own representatives, and expresses a hope that
they will accept, as a substitute, those of that country which Gulliver
had so lately rendered illustrious, and which untimely death had
prevented that enterprising traveller from publishing himself. Under
this fiction he continued to publish the debates of the British
parliament, hiding the names of persons and places by the transposition
of letters, in the way of anagram. These he contrived to explain to his
readers, by annexing to his volume for 1738, feigned proposals for
printing a work, to be called Anagrammata Rediviva. This list, and
others from different years, we give in the present edition, though we
have rejected the barbarous jargon from the speeches themselves. A
contemporary publication, the LONDON MAGAZINE, feigned to give the
debates of the Roman senate, and adapted Roman titles to the several
speakers. This expedient, as well as Cave's contrivance, sufficed to
protect its ingenious authors from parliamentary resentment; as the
resolution of the commons was never enforced.
The debates contained in the following volumes, commence with the 19th
November, 1740, and terminate with the 23d February, 1742-3. The
animated attempts that were made to remove sir Robert Walpole from
administration, seemed, in Cave's opinion, to call for an abler reporter
than Guthrie. Johnson was selected for the task; and his execution of it
may well justify the admiration which we have so often avowed for those
wonderful powers of mind, which, apparently, bade defiance to all
impediments of external fortune.
He was only thirty-two years of age, little acquainted with the world;
had never, perhaps, been in either house, and certainly had never
conversed with the men whose style and sentiments he took upon himself
to imitate. But so well and skilfully did he assume, not merely the
sedate and stately dignity of the lords, and the undaunted freedom of
the commons, but also the tone of the respective parties, that the
public imagined they recognised the individual manner of the different
speakers. Voltaire, and other foreigners of distinction, compared
British with Greek and Roman eloquence; and ludicrous instances are
detailed by Johnson's biographers, of praises awarded to Pulteney or to
Pitt, in the presence of the unsuspected author of the orations which
had excited such regard [Footnote: See Boswell, and sir John Hawkins.]!
For Johnson confessed, that he composed many of the speeches entirely
from his own imagination, and all of them from very scanty materials.
This confession he undoubtedly made from his love of truth, and not for
the gratification of vanity. When he heard that Smollett was preparing
his History of England, he warned him against relying on the debates as
authentic; and, on his death-bed, he professed that the recollection of
having been engaged in an imposture was painful to him. That this was a
refined scrupulosity the most rigid moralist must allow; but,
nevertheless, it is matter for congratulation, that the liberality of
parliament no longer subjects its reporters to the subterfuges which we
have thus briefly attempted to describe. And a comparison of this age
and its privileges with the restrictions of former times, may not be
without its use, if, by reminding us that we were not always free, it
teaches us political contentment, suggests to us the policy of
moderation, and enables us to love liberty, and yet be wise.